CIMMCO LIMITED Vs. SHYAM MOHAN JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The core question that arises for consideration in this revision, is whether before giving a direction to a party to make discovery of document, should the Court satisfy itself that the document is relevant for proper adjudication of the matter involved in the suit?

(2.) This, question has emerged in the following circumstances (i) The plaintiff non-petitioner (for short plaintiff') instituted a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the defendant-petitioner (for short defendant) in the trial Court. It was prayed that the retirement order dated October 31, 1991 be declared as null and void and ineffective and the defendant be restrained from retiring the plaintiff before October 31, 1998. The prayer was sought on the ground that all Executives in the defendant-Company retired at the age of 65 years and not at the age of 58 years. Executives Sarvshri R. K. Goyal, K. N. Pathak and Bhupendra Singh were retired after attaining the age of 65 years whereas the defendant-Company wanted to retire the plaintiff at the age of 58 years. (ii) The defendant refuted the allegations made in the plaint by filing the written statement and pleaded that K. N. Pathak and R. K. Goyal were respectively holding the post of President and Joint President to whom the retirement scheme framed by the Company on August 29, 1993, applied. Office order dated March 26, 1985 issued by the Chief Executive President of the Company did not apply to K. N. Pathak and R. K. Goyal. The order dated March 26, 1985 did apply to Bhupendra Singh but his services were extended by a separate order. In the case of the plaintiff the office order fixing the age of superannuation at 58 years applied in terms of the office order dated March 26, 1985. A list of the officers and the staff retired on attaining the age of superannuation at 58 years during the period from 1985 to October 18, 1993, was submitted by the defendantCompany in the trial Court. (iii) After framing the issues the case was fixed for recording the evidence of the plaintiff. (iv) On October 15, 1996 the plaintiff moved an application under Order 11, Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying therein that the service books of the plaintiff, Shri R. K. Goyal and Sh. K. N. Pathak be summoned as they will be useful for arriving at the correct decision. The defendant contested the application. (v) The trial Court vide order dated November 7, 1996 allowed the application and directed the defendant to produce the service books as required in the application. (vi) The order dated November 7, 1996 has been assailed in this revision.

(3.) I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before me by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order.